可待因,单独和扑热息痛(对乙酰氨基酚),对癌症疼痛。

文章的细节

引用
复制到剪贴板

Straube C,德里年代,杰克逊KC Wiffen PJ,贝尔射频,Strassels年代,Straube年代

可待因,单独和扑热息痛(对乙酰氨基酚),对癌症疼痛。

Cochrane数据库系统启2014年9月19日,(9):CD006601。cd006601.pub4 doi: 10.1002/14651858.。

PubMed ID
25234029 (在PubMed
]
文摘

背景:癌症患者疼痛是很常见的。阿片类止痛药,包括可待因、发挥重要作用在癌症疼痛管理的重大方针,特别是对于轻度至中度疼痛。可待因是广泛使用,便宜的,这可能会使它成为一个不错的选择,特别是在缺乏资源的环境中。它的使用是有争议的,部分原因是可待因不是有效的在少数患者不能把它转换成其活性代谢物(吗啡),也因为担心潜在的滥用,儿童的安全。beplayapp目的:确定的疗效和安全性可待因单独使用或结合扑热息痛缓解癌症疼痛。搜索方法:对照试验我们搜索Cochrane中央注册(中央;问题2)Cochrane图书馆2014年,MEDLINE和EMBASE从开始到2014年3月5日,补充临床试验注册中心的搜索和筛选参考列表识别的研究和评论的。选择标准:我们寻求随机、双盲、对照试验使用单个或多个剂量的可待因,有或没有扑热息痛,治疗癌症疼痛。试验可以平行或交叉的设计,每个治疗组与至少10个参与者。在儿童或成人的研究报道任何类型,等级,阶段的癌症都有资格。 We accepted any formulation, dosage regimen, and route of administration of codeine, and both placebo and active controls. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently read the titles and abstracts of all studies identified by the searches and excluded those that clearly did not meet the inclusion criteria. For the remaining studies, two authors read the full manuscripts and assessed them for inclusion. We resolved discrepancies between review authors by discussion. Included studies were described qualitatively, since no meta-analysis was possible because of the small amount of data identified, and clinical and methodological between-study heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 studies including 721 participants with cancer pain due to diverse types of malignancy. All studies were performed on adults; there were no studies on children. The included studies were of adequate methodological quality, but all except for one were judged to be at a high risk of bias because of small study size, and six because of methods used to deal with missing data or high withdrawal rates. Three studies used a parallel group design; the remainder were cross-over trials in which there was an adequate washout period, but only one reported results for treatment periods separately.Twelve studies used codeine as a single agent and three combined it with paracetamol. Ten studies included a placebo arm, and 14 included one or more of 16 different active drug comparators or compared different routes of administration. Most studies investigated the effect of a single dose of medication, while five used treatment periods of one, seven or 21 days. Most studies used codeine at doses of 30 mg to 120 mg.There were insufficient data for any pooled analysis. Only two studies reported our preferred responder outcome of 'participants with at least 50% reduction in pain' and two reported 'participants with no worse than mild pain'. Eleven studies reported treatment group mean measures of pain intensity or pain relief; overall for these outcome measures, codeine or codeine plus paracetamol was numerically superior to placebo and equivalent to the active comparators.Adverse event reporting was poor: only two studies reported the number of participants with any adverse event specified by treatment group and only one reported the number of participants with any serious adverse event. In multiple-dose studies nausea, vomiting and constipation were common, with somnolence and dizziness frequent in the 21-day study. Withdrawal from the studies, where reported, was less than 10% except in two studies. There were three deaths, in all cases due to the underlying cancer. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified only a small amount of data in studies that were both randomised and double-blind. Studies were small, of short duration, and most had significant shortcomings in reporting. The available evidence indicates that codeine is more effective against cancer pain than placebo, but with increased risk of nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Uncertainty remains as to the magnitude and time-course of the analgesic effect and the safety and tolerability in longer-term use. There were no data for children.

beplay体育安全吗DrugBank数据引用了这篇文章

药物